• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1882-CC VAM-2C

Started by cpm9ball,

11 posts in this topic

cpm9ball

cpm9ball

Posted
Posted

I'm planning on posting a similar thread on the VAMWorld site, but most of the time, I don't get very many responses over there because I have ruffled a few feathers by openly voicing my opinions. Every time I post a thread over there about a CC Morgan (78, 82, 83 & 84), it gets buried with very few comments or answers to my questions. I guess everyone is writing a book about one of these series, and they don't want to give anything away until they sell all of them.

 

I hope that none of you mind that I'm using you as guinea pigs and this forum to test a theory of mine.

 

Anyway, I acquired this coin in a 19-coin roll of 82-CC's about 5 years ago, and I noted something very interesting about it. When I researched it, there was no listing, so I sent it to Leroy Van Allen to be attributed. Leroy advised me that it was a VAM-2c, and his description read, in part............ During heavy die clashing, dies rotated producing double clash lines at top of left wreath from Liberty head chin & double clash lines at top left of rt wreath from back of cap where break is..........

 

However, I happen to disagree with his assessment of the cause of the "clash" near the top right wreath. In my letter to Leroy that accompanied the coin, I commented that the markings look strangely similar to the rim of a Morgan dollar. I offered the theory that maybe a planchet had jammed in the coining chamber so that it was struck about 40% off-center, and that the upset rim of the planchet may have damaged the die. I don't even know if it is possible for a silver planchet to damage a steel die, but stranger things have certainly happened.

 

I might also add that I have been involved with drafting most of my life, scaling and hand-drawing designs since 1959 and using AutoCAD since 1995. I can eye-ball a drawing and tell if something is out of sync, and with all deference for Leroy's accomplishments, his explanation does not make sense.

 

I'm posting some photos, and I would appreciate any comments or questions you may have.

 

Thanks!

 

Chris

 

 

 

94990.jpg.b785b5a73ce0a67d90b0c53846fdb6e4.jpg

94991.jpg.99e68d7b7418fe271b4eb9e5e2c43bf8.jpg

94992.jpg.92c5dc5b8595e364ef4a72ec8495d8f6.jpg

94994.jpg.9998c57ec31b67b0b645862781dec7c3.jpg

94995.jpg.1b80b8478cf34f9b49b7dc44516070cb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted

Aside from the fact that this seems like a very minor clash, I don't believe the rim caused this. If there were damage severe enough to cause the effect you are seeing, I would thing there would be some evidence of dentilation. There is absolutely none in the clash. I believe the double clashing theory is more plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cpm9ball

cpm9ball

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Aside from the fact that this seems like a very minor clash, I don't believe the rim caused this. If there were damage severe enough to cause the effect you are seeing, I would thing there would be some evidence of dentilation. There is absolutely none in the clash. I believe the double clashing theory is more plausible.

 

Jason, I'm suggesting that this coin was struck subsequent to the planchet damaging the die. The (plain) upset rim of the planchet doesn't have any denticles that could be transferred to the die, so you wouldn't see any evidence of them on my coin. Besides, the curvature of the Cap Vee is totally different from the parallel lines.

 

If my theory is correct, there would have been an undated CC Morgan struck 40% off-center at K6. It could have been caught by a Mint employee and never released into circulation. Who knows! Maybe it will surface one day.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tejas1836

tejas1836

Posted
Posted

Chris, I would like to comment but I know very little about VAMs. Just about everything I know is what I learned from reading the thread that The Count posted about his 1916 Buffalo nickel. Remember that one? He said he had found the incredible rare and expensive missing RI error. He even stated that VAMWorld listed it as the million dollar buffalo error. MarkT broke the bad news that VAMs were for Morgan and Peace dollars. :grin: Sorry - I couldn't resist bringing this one up again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted

 

Jason, I'm suggesting that this coin was struck subsequent to the planchet damaging the die. The (plain) upset rim of the planchet doesn't have any denticles that could be transferred to the die, so you wouldn't see any evidence of them on my coin. Besides, the curvature of the Cap Vee is totally different from the parallel lines.

 

Chris

 

Ah, ok. The problem with this is that a Type II planchet (one that is blank, after going through the upset mill) does not have the pronounced rim that would be reguired to make that 3 step look. The rim is curved.

 

Chris, could you do an overlay of the rim onto this area (at the same scale)? Then can you do an overlay of the region Leroy is saying is causing the clash? I think that might help with the visualization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cpm9ball

cpm9ball

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Jason, I'm suggesting that this coin was struck subsequent to the planchet damaging the die. The (plain) upset rim of the planchet doesn't have any denticles that could be transferred to the die, so you wouldn't see any evidence of them on my coin. Besides, the curvature of the Cap Vee is totally different from the parallel lines.

 

Chris

 

Ah, ok. The problem with this is that a Type II planchet (one that is blank, after going through the upset mill) does not have the pronounced rim that would be reguired to make that 3 step look. The rim is curved.

 

Chris, could you do an overlay of the rim onto this area (at the same scale)? Then can you do an overlay of the region Leroy is saying is causing the clash? I think that might help with the visualization.

 

Jason, photo #3 is an overlay of the clash alongside the Cap Vee which is supposed to have cause the clash. As you can see, the Cap Vee is not as long as the clash, and it's curvature changes direction to the southeast, away from the clash. All of the photos were taken using the same scale.

 

I'm still trying to learn how to use overlays with my photo software, and I wasn't able to create a good transparency of the rim to superimpose over the clash, nor was I able to produce a good transparency of the clash to superimpose over the rim. That is why I posted a photo of each above and below one another. As I said before, all of the photos were taken using the same scale. If you look at the photo of the "face" of the rim, it is about the same width as the parallel lines. You should ignore the expansion of the rim into the denticles and the reeding because neither would exist on the planchet.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cpm9ball

cpm9ball

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Chris, I would like to comment but I know very little about VAMs. Just about everything I know is what I learned from reading the thread that The Count posted about his 1916 Buffalo nickel. Remember that one? He said he had found the incredible rare and expensive missing RI error. He even stated that VAMWorld listed it as the million dollar buffalo error. MarkT broke the bad news that VAMs were for Morgan and Peace dollars. :grin: Sorry - I couldn't resist bringing this one up again.

 

Nothing wrong with that at all. We all got a good laugh over "Count Dracula's" assertions.

 

Actually, this has little to do with VAM's and more to do with how errors and varieties can occur during the production process.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
messydesk

messydesk

Posted
Posted

The 1882-CC die clash progression is currently being actively studied, simply because it's cool and there are so many stages available (at least 10, I think). What you see is as Leroy explains, and such rotation between clashes is also seen on other issues (86 VAM 1C, 86-O VAM 1A, etc.). Any resemblance between the curvature of the back of the cap and the rim is a coincidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cpm9ball

cpm9ball

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The 1882-CC die clash progression is currently being actively studied, simply because it's cool and there are so many stages available (at least 10, I think). What you see is as Leroy explains, and such rotation between clashes is also seen on other issues (86 VAM 1C, 86-O VAM 1A, etc.). Any resemblance between the curvature of the back of the cap and the rim is a coincidence.

 

Messy, there are at least a dozen stages to this series, but that is not the issue.

 

I'm not comparing the curvature of the Cap Vee to that of the rim. Look at the overlay. There is no way that the Cap Vee could have caused that clash. What I was comparing was the clash to the rim to try to determine what actually caused the clash.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing